Recently I listened to a debate online which really didn't settle anything for me. The only thing that I got out of it was that many in the world today give more credibility to dictionary definitions than to the etymology of words. That's to say that people are more inclined to go with what somebody wrote in a book 200 yrs ago as the only definitive meaning of a word, than to go by what the intention behind the word was meant to convey. In other words, how did that word come into existence. Below is an EDITED audio clip of the debate between Clint Richardson and Marc Stevens that was hosted on Gnostic Media. First is the edited audio clip followed by the full 3 hour debate, and below will be a link to the hosting website. Just posting this online to get some conversation going. Let's see what happens.

A perfect example of taking some guys definition of anarchy over the etymological creation of the word, an- without, archon- ruler, no rulers.
But, like it has been proven, if you keep repeating anarchy means chaos, anarchy means chaos, people will begin to believe that that is what it means. Incredible!!

If only you'd have played the part where, after claiming Noah Webster was a "government agent" I ask what that means, considering Marc vehemently claims that government doesn't exist. So Webster was an agent of... nothing?

Sadly, the whole point of this was to show that an anarchist is a nihilist, as it was in the French revolutionary period, who seeks to destroy meaning and appearance until nothing is left. And so the whole lesson here, though not said, is that we could not debate in the first place because we can never agree on the meaning of anything, since the nihilistic anarchist personality seeks to destroy meaning. In other words, Marc seeks to destroy the LAW (rules) behind language so that no discourse is or in this case was ever actually possible. The effect of this anarchist revolution into nihilism is seen today everywhere, recognized by the empty signs and symbols, the simulacrum and simulation of all symbols so that the copy has no connection to its original, the symbol no connection to its intended source, and the language so political and selfish in its motivation that this show is a perfect example of what anarchy (lawlessness) towards the meaning of words produces in any attempt to communicate.

The fact that Marc can say first that government doesn't exist and then in the next sentence say that Webster was a government agent shows perfectly well that no debate is possible, for the rules of debate demand an agreed upon set of linguistic definitions.

If this is not clear, then this was all for nought. Personally, I am grateful for the experience as it confirmed this in triplicate. Therefore while as a debate this was a useless endeavor, and obviously so, the takeaway from it is the very reason why it is useless to attempt to speak reason to an anarchist. For reason to apply in communication, there must be meaning (purpose) behind words.

This is the very real danger of such nihilistic "movements."

Would love to do this again, since Marc's rhetoric allowed me to expand my own research into the subject.